- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:28:12 -0500
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 11/18/2013 4:15 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> The reason that content protection is in scope for W3C is that we cannot >> compete if we don't have a framework to accept protected content. We >> would like to find a way to do that which is consistent with open web >> principles. > But this is the problem: content protection as provided by > closed-source, proprietary CDM blobs is functionally equivalent to the > closed boxes with which you claim to be competing. You're not providing > an alternative to the closed boxes, you're merely providing a means to > interface to them. There is no competition there, only collusion. > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> That's the reason that we have rejected anything >> proprietary or patent encumbered from the Open Web Platform. > Only after an uproar from the community, I'm not sure what you think we rejected after an uproar from the community. W3C was the first to reject patent encumbered technology and did it under the direction of Tim Berners-Lee. > just as is happening now with > your declaring DRM as in-scope. > > * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/01/the_free_webs_over_as/ > * http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response > * http://www.advogato.org/article/352.html > > Then, as now, the W3C started out down a path that would prove > disastrous to the Open Web. Then, as now, there was an outcry from > developers across the world. > > Will you listen now, as you did then? >
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 00:28:16 UTC